I remain flabbergasted over folks, and there appears to be no shortage of them, who believe there is a difference between Democrats and Republicans, who declare the Democrat party to be the anti-war party—or incipient anti-war party, provided the right degree of activism and populist wizardry turning the conscience of the Democrat leadership and thus Congress—no matter the Iraq occupation is still in motion even though the Democrats regained control of Congress more than six months ago.

“Having won the leadership of both houses of Congress in the 2006 congressional elections thanks to a groundswell of antiwar sentiment, the Democratic Party leadership has now provided all the money and more that President Bush requested for the continuation and escalation of a criminal war, and it has done so under terms dictated by the White House,” writes Bill Van Auken . “In the six months since the November elections, the Democrats have sought to placate and deceive the voters who handed them the reins of power in the House and Senate by posturing as opponents of the war, while at the same time pledging to 'support the troops' by funding that war and continuing to support the geo-strategic goals that underlay the March 2003 invasion in the first place.”

I'd say these blinkered voters were chumped outright. Indeed, a few “patriots,” urging your humble blogger to vote Democrat last November on the absurd hope the Democrats might actually impeach Bush, followed this obviously flawed line of reasoning with pollyannaish hope against hard-bitten political reality. It was as if the stolen election of 2004 had disappeared into the vapors, right behind the stolen election of 2000.

As for the libs, they wasted no time falling all over themselves in an effort to excuse Senate majority leader Pelosi, who sold the taken for granted anti-war faction of the Democrat party down the proverbial river. “It would appear that the current issue of the Nation, dated June 11, went to press after the Democratic leadership in Congress had formalized its abject surrender to the White House—accepting a war-funding measure without even the pretense of a timetable for withdrawing US troops from Iraq—but before the actual votes in the House and Senate to approve the legislation,” Van Auken continues.

The thrust of this statement is an argument that “disunity” and “defections” by a relative handful of right-wing Democrats have undermined the valiant efforts of the party's leadership in the House and Senate to legislate a withdrawal of US troops from Iraq.

Thus, the magazine's readers are told, the likes of Michigan Democratic Senator Carl Levin, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and Congressman Steny Hoyer, the Democrats' House majority leader, have “prevented House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate majority leader Harry Reid from forcing a timeline on the Administration.”

“The Democratic majority in Congress is so razor-thin that in late May it finally gave up the attempt to pass a funding bill establishing a timeline for withdrawal,” the editorial explains.

The magazine's editors write as if they were part of a public relations firm hired to massage the images of Pelosi and Reid.

“At least Pelosi and Reid are voting right,” the editorial declares. It cites the House speaker's and Senate majority leader's votes on a pair of resolutions that were doomed to defeat from the outset, both calling for a cut in funding for “combat troops” in Iraq.

Here, the timing of the Nation's editorial served to underscore the fraudulence of its entire thesis. The supposedly principled opponent of war Harry Reid joined 37 other Democrats in the Senate in voting for the war-funding bill. Only 10 Democrats voted against.

As for Pelosi, while personally voting against the measure in the House, she carefully packaged the legislation to ensure its passage by a nearly unanimous Republican minority and 86 Democrats. This was accomplished by means of an adroit parliamentary maneuver, which split a domestic funding portion of the legislation—opposed by some Republicans—from its war spending core, thus assuring that the latter received a solid majority. More importantly, 216 Democrats voted in favor of this procedure—with only seven voting “no”—making the approval of the war spending inevitable.

Of course the war spending was inevitable, as the majority of Democrats are essentially no different than a snake oil salesman who will say anything to gain the trust of the easily blinkered. Pelosi and crew have no intention of ending the occupation of Iraq and less intention of impeaching the Commander Guy and his neocon handlers.

“The US political and economic system, ruled by consensus, is deeply criminalized. It thrives on war and oppression. It is an elite racket, sustained by resource conquest, collusion, fraud, lies, cover-up, and the indoctrination and manipulation of minds. ‘The people', whose votes never count, are viewed with contempt,” writes Larry Chin .

The Republicans and Democrats are factions of the same criminal New World Order, funded by the same criminal interests, beholden to the same think tanks, foundations, corporations and military-intelligence-industrial interests, following the same geopolitical script, written by bipartisan consensus.

Given this reality, it is no surprise that the Democratic leadership has kept its promise to keep the impeachment of Bush and Cheney “off the table” and reach “across the aisle”. Consensus interests are at stake.

The vast majority of the Democrats, particularly the corrupt Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), want the war and bloodshed to continue.

The vast majority of Democrats are, and have always been, enthusiastic and willing partners in the “war on terrorism” and are co-architects of an ever-expanding “homeland security” apparatus.

The vast majority of Democrats do not oppose the war in the Middle East. They support its expansion and the deepening of the occupation, as long as it is “managed” properly, and under the control of a US-led international consensus.

In addition to selling out anti-war Democrats, Pelosi and crew have sold out the American worker. “Besides ending the Iraq war, the top priority of American voters in November 2006 was fair trade. A Gallup Poll showed that the economy, health care, fuel prices and the energy crisis were the top priority of 47 percent of Democrats (after 61 percent demanding an end of the Iraq debacle), and 42 percent of independent voters shared the same concerns. In the same poll, the immigration issue was in single digits for Democrats and independents,” writes Tom Hayden .

Nevertheless, on May 10 Pelosi, White House officials and pro-corporate Democrats announced a surprise “bipartisan” agreement on trade, without revealing any details.

As the package is rushed to a vote, it appears to be a “freshened” version of NAFTA (the phrase is that of Mickey Kantor, trade czar under President Bill Clinton). This would fall far short of what the voters expected and most Democratic elected officials promised last fall. Pelosi faces strong opposition from most members of her caucus, labor leaders and environmental activists.

She will be promoting the common agendas of Wall Street, Hollywood and the “new Democrats” led by Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Walnut Creek. Like the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement, this trade bill will probably pass with a minority of Democrats lending votes to the Republicans.

Back in November, besieged with emails imploring your humble blogger to at minimum urge Americans to vote for Democrats, in order to grease the skids to get rid of Bush and the neocons, I responded by declaring my long held belief there is absolutely no difference between Democrats and Republicans—a vote for either side is a vote for tyranny and feudalism—a fact left out in the open for all to see. Now we have Nancy Pelosi pedaling a “freshened” version of NAFTA, that is to say a brand of neoliberal globalism that will eventually turn the planet into a slave labor gulag based on the Chinese “economic miracle” (or a miracle for loan sharks and financial sector swindlers).

Finally, I implore the street level Democrat to read Carroll Quigley, Bill Clinton's mentor, who wrote: “The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can ‘throw the rascals out' at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy.”

Naturally, come 2008, the blinkered masses will once again be allowed to “throw the rascals out,” a Democrat will be “elected,” and the Nation magazine and its sanctimonious gaggle of libs will go around tooting their little partisan horns—horns passed out by Katrina vanden Heuvel who is, when not cozying up to Chris Matthews and MSNBC, sitting on the board the Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt Institute (FERI), a foundation connected to the election throwing National Endowment for Democracy through FERI Director Brademas (see Bob Feldman, The Nation's NED Connection ).

Some of us will urge people not to vote, except on local issues of importance.

For your humble blogger, the idea of participating in the act of turning the planet into a slave labor gulag and hellish war zone is really too much to stomach.

"TerrorStorm is something that should be seen by everyone, no matter what their stance/affiliation/political bent. " - Rich Rosell, Digitally Obsessed UK Get TerrorStorm on DVD today